CPCretirement, there's no need for Google to add additional policies for what they consider 'inappropriate' content.
After a week or two of PSAs... we all pull the ads ourselves!
It's not so much inapropriate content as it is sites that are not approved for one reason or another not due to content.
For example, I set up a site with perfectly legit content. I had adsense code from my main account on it when I was testing it under IP address. It showed very relevent high CPC ads. When I launched it I submitted it to Google for adsense because it is a site that I own 100% by myself. The other account is split with a partner. It did not get approved.
If I had put the adsense code on from my existing account I would be getting paid per click right now. As it stands I won't do that because it was explicitly turned down by Google. It's a good, but new, site. Small but helpful.
This is the hole that I am referring to. A site that did not get approved by Google even though it will serve relevent ads could have been successfully in the program if I had just added it to my current account.
Actually I'm running my adSense on several sites disaproved.
Their reasons for disaproval are rather arcane, and that is why their TOS is explicit about it. No reason why you shouldn't run adsense.
In fact if they know you already have an account they'll explicitely say that you won't get another one and to use your existing account.
I had the opposite situation. I put Adsense on a site that I own together with a partner after running my own Adsense account on in for a month or two.
I applied too early. The site only had six pages in Google's main index. So the application was turned down (certain standards blah, blah...)
I didn't reply to the rejection mail, but sent a query through the "contact Google" link after logged in to Adsense from my own account, asking if it still was OK to show the ads from that account on the rejected site.
It took almost a week before I got an answer, but it was worth waiting for. Suddenly they had changed their minds, and would aprove the newer site. A couple of minutes later the acceptance mail came through for the new site.
So, don't give up. Ask nicely, and the mighty G might change it's mind.
This is probably my biggest issue with Adsense. I have always felt that all sites should be approved. If people put the code willy nilly on any old site, it will degrade the program and we'll lose advertisers and revenue.
|It seems to me to be a big loophole that Google allows someone with an approved site to put the code on any other site they control. Many of those sites probably wouldn't get approved on their own. |
Against that speaks the fact that they approved a small site without any real content (it provides a webservice to my other sites and has no customer facing content) and rejected my Large authorative site with national dominance, as well as my focused, well visited and clean site in a high money market.
I just sent an email to get clarification on running code from my existing account on one that has not yet been approved (or has be rejected). I'll let you know what I hear.
Why do you need clarification when this is addressed in the FAQ?
|4. Can I show ads on more than one site? |
Yes, and you don't even have to let us know because we'll automatically detect new sites that contain the AdSense ad code. The HTML code we provide you with is valid for any page in any site on which you want to display AdWords ads. However, you may only display AdWords ads on sites that you own or on sites that you are legally authorized to act on behalf of for the purposes of Google AdSense. We also monitor all sites in AdSense to ensure that all pages displaying AdWords ads comply with our program policies.
I can see two reasons why Google might not want to require approval of every individual site:
1) Trying to keep publishers from using their code on more than one site (including unapproved sites) would be a constant battle, and--in terms of cost-effectiveness--it probably isn't a battle worth fighting.
2) Just as important, treating each of a publisher's sites as a separate entity would provide Website owners with a level of statistical detail that Google might not want to share.
|Trying to keep publishers from using their code on more than one site (including unapproved sites) would be a constant battle, and--in terms of cost-effectiveness--it probably isn't a battle worth fighting. |
I disagree that it would be costly to control. Assuming a site is defined as a host (host.domain.tld) it would be trivial for Google to check that the account matched the host it's assigned to. It would also be trivial for Google to assign multiple approved hosts to each account.
I agree with Killroy that though G have a great prograsm on their hands they certainly have to clean up their checking and accepting sites as publishers act. There seem to be no clear rules on which one can assume that a site can be rejected or accepted. Maybe it also differs from the person to person who views the application , could boil down to luck too.
I also do not think u need to ask for clarification (though it is decent to do so) since the TOS clearly specify it is not required.
but then doesnt G TOS also say that they will review sites to which the code has been added and block / reject them if they r not suitable. So does this mean that Google is not checking on the sites that add the code based on an application approved for another site?
You guys were right. Google said that I can put the code on any site. That's true even if the site in question was turned down on it's own.